"Allowing in" as key to creation

I haven't written in forever and I need to write just to remind myself how. But each day I don't write I seem to lose myself more and more: I have convinced myself that one must forfeit being a writer to be a reader, and vice-versa. To read: to lose oneself to the other, to place oneself in the mind of the other, or rather to place the other's mind in the place of ones own. One questions the thought of the other, but only to ones own dismay, as the writer is right, if you properly choose who to allow in, that is. Yet we can only argue against one writer with another, until you yourself become a writer and can argue against the others. Nevertheless writing is also an allowing in. If you are never yourself but always your influences, if you are teaching and hence allowing a bringing-forth of the new into your learning. We learn as we write even if we only reiterate what we have already learned: perhaps the ability to discover the new does end at twenty-four, yet perhaps the new really is in the rephrasing of the old. Perhaps all that can be discovered has already been discovered and we re-discover what others and ourselves have already discovered. This is why the how of discovery is so important right now: perhaps we each have a different method of discovery or perhaps we all align when we try to discover, in the trying itself, as if we must all recognize, in order to properly discover, the coveredness of the covered as covered, and then to see in this coveredness the unconcealment of the concealed, the moment of revelation: having stretched to the limits of the understanding what is within these limits begins to reveal itself in the being of its appearance. The being of the appearance is allowed into unconcealment against its will to remain concealed. The appearance of a being is the way it is. The appearance of the concealed is the way (how) it is, concealed, yet as appearance thus unconcealed.

But what about acting? The appearance is unconcealed, and the concealed does not appear. But as concealed it appears: we know the actor is an actor and we can, from this, infer certain characteristics of the actor that correspond to actors as actors. Yet there is still more that is concealed than we can see in the concealment: it seems that the dialectic of concealment-unconcealment mimics that of the concept of stochasm: from the concealed comes unconcealed and concealed, from that concealed comes unconcealed and concealed, the unconcealed being held as unconcealed, in an infinite progression. Then we must look into the concealed to reveal to us the truth, and not into what we have already unconcealed. The concealed's concealedness is what unconceals the concealed.

But back to the allowing in of reading and writing. It is a possesion of a revelation, a revelation by language to the author in the reading, a possesion by language of the writer in the revelation that wants to be written. To read or write one must be possessed, possessed by revelation, what grants inspiration to simply do, and not not do. The allowing in is the allowing in of inspiration, the allowing in of a revelation to grant inspiration, the allowing in of the other through which one sees oneself, and from this seeing oneself the world is opened, truth becomes, and Being becomes what it is, the way we see it. Allowing in is the key to discovery, and hence to its brother, that is its identical twin, creation.

There is more I can write about this.